Can Niantic give a warning or a ban if:
You do an appeal to nomination but Niantic finds that the appeal does not contain any new useful details.
You have send a nomination say 3 years ago and it was rejected. Then 3 years later you send the same nomination again (you do not remember that you have send it already earlier).
Both sound like you are “spamming the same nomination” again.
Hey @hopeakotka,
Thanks for reaching out. Let me clarify these for you
No, not providing additional information is not a violation and will not lead to any action whatsoever. Having said that, providing additional information/context provides the reviewer more information and greatly increases the odds of the nomination getting approved.
Resubmitting a nomination again is also not an offense. However, submitting ineligible nominations again and again (such as Wayspots on ineligible locations or really low quality objects such as dustbins) can be considered spamming.
Let me know if you need more clarifications.
Happy exploring!
Can you provide clarity on how “really low quality objects” should be rated? Should we merely 
in Socialize, Exercise, Explore? “Permanent and distinct” wording doesn’t really make sense but I’m unsure how the criteria fields factor into reviewing.
Can we just have a new voting option in Wayfarer, something like this?
Selecting thumb down will end the review.
New topic created about this:
If the category is “Low Quality Object”, thumbs up would mean it IS low quality, and thumbs down would mean it’s NOT low quality.
But the idea is great. It could be worded in the positive with a thumb, OR put under Accuracy where you click boxes for negatives.
Having a simple way to reject seems attractive.
However finding wording that would work over many circumstances is not easy.
It is not always the object itself that is the critical part. For example some simple items can act as anchors for something else trail markers are anchors for the trail, benches may be anchors for a viewpoint a basic entrance point may be an anchor for a park etc.
Low quality is also a term that is likely to have a wide range of interpretations.
The inconsistency that can happen during review is a major source of frustration to wayfinders.
I am by the way not saying the current system is perfect at all, but we do need to think carefully about how ideas might work in practice.
My most preferable idea would be to rename “generic business” to “generic object”.
In my opion it should more depend to the thing (the point) which kind ever
Or maybe have the option be generic business/generic object. I know the distinct field sort of covers that, but since it’s also part of the permanent category it leads to some confusion. A memorial bench for a private citizen could well be permanent but it isn’t exactly distinct from the others. Having the option to say it is a generic object could be useful for reviewing and could help nominators understand why the spot was rejected.
